Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill - Standing Committee A

[Janet Anderson in the Chair]

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Clause 17 - Commission for Rural Communities

Question proposed [this day],That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 16, in clause 26, page 9, leave out line 11.
No. 17, in clause 27, page 9, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 18, in clause 27, page 9, line 26, leave out ‘and the Commission’.
No. 19, in clause 27, page 9, line 29, leave out from ‘England’ to end of line 30.
No. 20, in clause 29, page 10, line 7, leave out from ‘England’ to end of line 8.
No. 21, in clause 30, page 10, leave out line 12.
No. 23, in schedule 7, page 62, leave out line 35.
No. 24, in schedule 11, page 68, leave out lines 37 and 38.
No. 25, in schedule 11, page 73, line 16, leave out ‘places’ and insert ‘place’.
No. 26, in schedule 11, page 73, leave out line 17.
No. 27, in schedule 11, page 73, line 35, leave out ‘places’ and insert ‘place’.
No. 28, in schedule 11, page 73, leave out line 36.
No. 29, in schedule 11, page 77, line 29, leave out ‘places’ and insert ‘place’.
No. 30, in schedule 11, page 77, leave out line 30.
No. 31, in schedule 11, page 78, line 17, leave out ‘places’ and insert ‘place’.
No. 32, in schedule 11, page 78, leave out line 18.
No. 33, in schedule 11, page 78, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
No. 34, in schedule 11, page 78, line 28, leave out ‘that Part’ and insert ‘Part 2’.
No. 35, in schedule 11, page 85, leave out line 21.
No. 36, in schedule 11, page 91, line 24, leave out ‘places’ and insert ‘place’.
No. 37, in schedule 11, page 91, leave out line 25.
No. 22, in clause 97, page 39, line 14, leave out
‘and the Commission for Rural Communities’.

Jim Knight: Good afternoon, Mrs. Anderson. It is a pleasure to wind up a thorough debate on the role of the  Commission for Rural Communities. Before the Committee adjourned this morning, we were enjoying the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Unfortunately, it had to be ended abruptly, but he put his points over well. I shall try to pull all the strands of the debate together. You seem to be blessed, Mrs. Anderson, with chairing the afternoon sitting and listening to me sum up a debate that you did not have the privilege of hearing in the morning. I shall do my best to reflect it for you.
As a starting point, it will be helpful—particularly in response to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who perhaps is still enjoying his lunch—to sketch out the basic framework that we are discussing. It is helpful also to think about the organisations that we are setting up to be responsible for delivery, those responsible for policy and those responsible for being an adviser and advocate. That clearly relates to what the Government are doing in setting up the CRC.
In many ways, there is confusion about that. The call for local authorities to be the adviser and advocate runs counter to what we are trying to do in setting up an independent advocate. We all value the role of local government as a major delivery body and as advocate for its own local area, but not for the nation as a whole. The Government are trying to split those functions in respect of England, so that we have clarity about who is delivering and who is the advocate. The regional development agency is the delivery body with particular emphasis on economic regeneration and economic development. The body that we discussed at great length on Tuesday, Natural England, will be the lead body on delivering for the environment. With the commission, we are setting up a body that has separated off its delivery functions and is left with its advocacy and rural-proofing function.
Having mapped that out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) wanted me to, it is important to say that in many ways the CRC will act as the judge of whether we have got things right, because it will have the power and the resources to examine whether the delivery framework is effective for rural England. I look forward to it taking on that role.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall in particular when the record of this debate is published in Hansard, I stress that we are not abolishing the Countryside Agency. That was the wish of Haskins. We are significantly trimming and simplifying its function and making it the body of the rural advocate—the independent adviser and advocate for rural communities. As we discussed on Tuesday, its landscape and recreation functions will go to Natural England. Its socio-economic functions will go to the regional development agencies. However, those functions that the Countryside Agency—led so ably by the current rural advocate, the Rev. Dr. Stuart Burgess—performs so well at the moment will remain and it will continue to be an effective advocate for rural areas.
I pay tribute to the staff of the Countryside Agency for the work that they have done in that regard. They have achieved significant successes. Departments now rural-proof their policies; indeed, rural-proofing is part of regulatory impact assessments throughout Government. The rural-proofing process is a crucial way of providing equitable access to services for people in rural areas, which is a great achievement of the current functions of the Countryside Agency. However, we must not be complacent, which is why we want to distil its functions into a single body.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, who asked me some direct questions this morning about the role of the rural advocate in individual areas. The rural advocate will be the chair of the CRC; he will continue to be appointed by the Prime Minister and will have direct access to him in that role. He will advise Parliament, not just Government, providing advice to MPs on rural services and the needs of rural communities. He will advise all bodies that have an influence and an impact in rural areas.
It is important for the Committee to recognise the crucial role played by local authorities. I do not want to downgrade that for one second; it has been argued for passionately by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, particularly by the hon. Members for South-East Cornwall and for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Local authorities are community leaders; they join up and deliver high-quality services to meet local needs and priorities and support the development of sustainable communities, working with regional and local partners.
It is important for the Government to let go, and to devolve decision-making and delivery to local bodies, recognising and strengthening the relationship between delivery bodies and policy makers. However, the Government need to ensure accountability for devolved delivery and the CRC will have a crucial role in that respect, advising Government on what is working and on the improvements that can be made.
We need also to look across, between and within local authorities at any disparities in those areas that are particularly disadvantaged to discover what is working well in some areas so that lessons can be learned and applied in new areas. That is why it is not appropriate to give the entire responsibility for advocacy and for being a watchdog only to local authorities. In the current context of Government, regional government and local government all having an important role as delivery bodies in rural areas, there should be an organisation that is properly resourced apart from those bodies to monitor their effectiveness.
I shall comment specifically on some of the earlier contributions. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Herbert) plugged his book, “Direct Democracy”, which I shall seek in the Library to try to find something appropriate on which to comment next time he speaks. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill added regulation, counter to the Labour party manifesto. The CRC is not a regulator; the Bill simplifies and streamlines much legislation.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman has read thoroughly the regulatory impact assessment, which was published alongside the Bill. It reduces the number of bodies with which people have to deal. We have not chosen to put a duty on all public bodies to rural-proof their policies precisely because we do not want to increase regulation on public bodies. We are setting up this adviser, advocate and informer to ensure that policies are rural-proofed, but in a deregulatory way.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the CRC would fight against anti-rural polices. Certainly it will; it is the very core of its function to point out when government, at whatever level—not necessarily public bodies, but perhaps other bodies, too—acts against the interests of rural communities, which we all represent in the House of Commons. It would be the commission’s responsibility to point that out to whichever body is acting contrary to the interests of rural communities. It will then be a question whether or not government, or whoever is being criticised, listens, but armed with the evidence that the CRC will give the hon. Gentleman, if something affects his constituency, his arguments will be all the more powerful because they will have the authority of the Government’s watchdog giving him the evidence.
I listened with great enjoyment to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith). We had some discussion of Sheffield this morning. and of what a fine city it is, because it has been decided that Natural England will have its headquarters there. That is not strictly relevant to the CRC, but one thing seemed to lead to another.
I have great affection for Sheffield. My father contracted cancer on a few occasions during his life. On one occasion we were living in Derbyshire and he went to Weston Park to be treated. Then, 10 years later, when we were living in our other Chairman’s constituency, Bromley and Chislehurst, such was the paucity of care that we experienced locally that we took him back up to Sheffield, to Weston Park, where he was successfully treated again, and he enjoyed many more years of life following that. That is why I have a great affection for Sheffield.
I understand the rural aspects of the city. There were the points that my hon. Friend made about the drugs problems that affect some of the villages in her constituency. I recalled listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw raising similar questions about his own constituency in the previous Parliament. I am sure that issues around drugs and social disadvantage will be those on which the commission will focus.
The CRC will not have a direct role in the planning process because it will not be one of the statutory consultees. That would not stop it commenting on an ad hoc basis, as and when it chose to, in order to fulfil its function as an advocate.

John Mann: The point that I was attempting to make, and which the Minister could perhaps clarify, is whether or not the remit might include commenting not on the specifics, but on the whole process of planning, and whether or not that is sufficiently rural-proofed.

Jim Knight: I can see no reason why it could not do that if it wanted to do so. I cannot foresee that we would necessarily direct it in that way, and we would certainly not put that in the Bill, but I can see no reason why it should not.

John Mann: That is a helpful and welcome answer. Could I get the Minister’s comments on, for example, the creation of village of design statements? That process is slowly shifting powers over planning on the micro level to villages. That process and its effectiveness is exactly the kind of area that this body ought to be considering and commenting on.

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which I do not want to go too far down the road with because I am mindful of the need for us to focus on whether or not it is appropriate for us to have a CRC. However, within the planning process, village design statements and, equally, rural exception sites—there are a number of issues—have a profound effect on villages and rural areas. I am sure that the rural advocate and the CRC will be watching carefully and, if appropriate, would want to comment.
I would round off by, obviously, encouraging the Committee to support the clause standing part of the Bill and to reject the amendments tabled by the absent hon. Member for South-East Cornwall. The commission will be a strong, independent rural advocate, adviser and watchdog, helping to ensure that the Government’s policies make a real difference to people in rural areas. It must pay particular attention to social disadvantage and the problems of economic underperformance, with rural-proofing right at its heart.

Roger Williams: I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall, who has had to attend an important constituency engagement this afternoon.
This morning, he made a strong case for the role of local government in representing the needs of people who live in rural areas and, indeed, in all areas. This is a time in public life where we want to see clarity, and a certain amount of definition, in terms of who does what. Certainly the public want to know. The public do not want to have a plethora of organisations to which to make their representations. They want to be able to say, “This organisation will reflect my concerns and consider my points of view.” My hon. Friend’s argument that that should be local authorities is effective because they are made up of people who are directly elected by the people whom they represent and are democratically accountable.
Several Labour Members made telling points, such as that of the hon. Member for Sherwood, who is no longer in his place, that Lord Haskins’ point—that delivery, advice and advocacy can be separated—is not as straightforward as it may appear. [Interruption.] As I mention the hon. Gentleman, he enters the Room.
The Bill provides that the role of the Commission for Rural Communities will be to provide advocacy and advice to government and other bodies. It will have no role in delivery. My experience, having worked for the Development Board for Rural Wales, is that people engage with organisations that deliver, because they feel some response from them and thus feel the need to engage with them.

Madeleine Moon: The sort of work that the commission could undertake was exemplified in a meeting that my hon. Friend and I attended last night with BT Wales, when we discussed how BT could, through the improved use of services such as broadband, help more people to continue working in rural communities through homeworking. That would bring opportunities for people to retain their expertise and remain in their home communities, rather than having to be part of the exodus that has gone on for generations in Wales of people leaving the countryside, feeling that they had to go to work in towns. We have a tremendous opportunity to encourage a flow of people back into rural communities, thus giving vibrancy to those communities. Surely, it will be the commission’s role to act as an advocate for government, business and deprived communities, and to ensure that rural communities have such facilities, rather than organisations such as BT having to work on their own with government. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Roger Williams: I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. She makes a strong argument, with which I agree to an extent, but the Liberal Democrats do not question whether the Commission for Rural Communities could fulfil those functions—I am sure that it would attempt to do so—but whether it is the best organisation to do so. I do not want to stray across Offa’s dyke, but the hon. Lady and I both come from that area, and I think that local authorities in Wales have fulfilled those roles well since the Development Board for Rural Wales was amalgamated with the Welsh Development Agency.
Is the commission the best body that could be put forward to carry out these functions? The Minister has argued cogently, but he has not addressed our concerns. This is a matter of great principle, because once the body is set up, it will be difficult to undo. I have a letter from the chairman of the Countryside Agency in which he expresses himself both in his present situation and in a future incarnation. I presume that he is talking about the commission when he says,
 “We intend to be independent and will speak out as necessary— but we accept that we will have to prove ourselves.”
It will have to prove itself to the people who it represents rather than to itself. Although the Minister has made a strong case, stronger cases have been made from the Opposition Benches and some pertinent messages have come from his hon. Friends. Given that, we will ask to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 9, Noes 4.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Commission for Rural Communities

James Paice: I beg to move amendment
No. 57, in schedule 2, page 45, line 13, leave out
‘less than 8 nor more than 15’
and insert ‘more than 8’.

Janet Anderson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 58, in schedule 2, page 45, line 14, at end insert—
‘(1A)At least half the total number of members must have served as an elected member of a public authority or as a Member of Parliament within four years prior to first appointment.’.
No. 59, in schedule 2, page 45, line 31, at end insert—
‘5AEach member shall be appointed for a term of four years.’.
No. 60, in schedule 2, page 46, line 6, at end insert
‘after the first term of office, but no member shall be eligible for reappointment having served two full terms.’.

James Paice: There is obviously going to be a Commission for Rural Communities, so we now turn our attention to one or two small but important, aspects of trying to get that right. The four amendments all relate to the commission’s board.
Amendment No. 57 deals with the size of the board. The Minister—and the Secretary of State on Second Reading—spoke about the CRC being a small organisation that will not have a large number of staff and will not cost a vast amount of taxpayers’ money. Therefore, why is it necessary to have so many people on the board? My recollection is that there could be as many as 15. I am proposing that we reduce the board size to eight. The larger any organisation is the more unmanageable it becomes. Anyone who has tried to chair a meeting knows full well that the more people there are, the more difficult it is. For a small organisation that is trying to do the job that the Minister has set out, eight members is perfectly reasonable. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee and mention in passing that the difference between eight and 15 is fairly massive. I am not necessarily wed to eight, but I do not think that there should be such huge variation.
Amendment No. 58 returns to the issue of accountability, which colleagues and I referred to in the previous debate. The wording of the amendment is slightly tortuous and, I suspect, entirely novel. Nevertheless, it seeks to address the point that, although we cannot introduce direct accountability because of how the Government are setting up the commission, it would be a significant step forward if the people on the board knew what it was like to be a representative of rural communities. That is why we are proposing that at least half of the board should have recent experience of having been elected either to a council or to this House—they could not be a sitting Member of this House, but could be an ex-Member. That would add the element of board members knowing what it is to be elected.
There will be many occasions when hon. Members from all parts of the House of Commons will reflect on the different attitudes and pressures of and on elected representatives, who know what it is to be elected. We have all heard it said, or said it ourselves, that it is all very well for him or her, but they have never been elected to anything in their life. That is an important point. Even if we are not building direct accountability into the organisation, the people who serve on the board, or at least a majority of them, should have served in recent times as an elected member and therefore understand the discipline of accountability. I suspect that that is a novel approach, but I hope that the theory, at least, commends itself to the Minister. Again, I do not pretend to have got the drafting entirely right.
Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 are effectively a repetition of amendments that I tabled in respect of Natural England. They would include in schedule 2 proposals for members to be appointed for a term of four years and a maximum of two terms, to keep a constant flow of new blood to the board, while accepting at the outset that it would need to be staggered to avoid an “all-in, all-out” situation. The importance of the proposals is clear. I made the case as well as I could for Natural England and I will not bother to repeat it, especially as it failed to achieve its desired intent at that stage.
The four amendments would go some way towards improving the standard of the board, making it a manageable size, and not excessive compared to the size of the organisation seeking to run it, and bringing on to the board people with some understanding of what it is like to be accountable to the people whom they serve.

Peter Atkinson: I intervene briefly to support my hon. Friend’s amendments, especially the proposal that some members of the board should have directly elected experience. Everyone should vote for an amendment that would give Members of Parliament or former Members of Parliament an extra job, particularly after the next election when one or two may be looking for activities to make up for not being in the House of Commons.
On a more serious note, it is important that the Commission for Rural Communities will have the ability, in some manner, to get its fingers into local  government and other existing organisations. I opposed the commission initially because it would add another tier of local bureaucracy to a very crowded area.
I have much sympathy with what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said about local government, and it is worth considering the situation in Northumberland. The county is about a third of the size of Birmingham. Its population is about 306,000, yet it is governed by a county council and six district councils, a national park and the rural development agency. The population is becoming seriously over-governed.
The CRC will be another player in the field, albeit a slightly hands-off one. Certainly, some of the policies and the initiatives of the organisation will impact on the many local groups. The consequence of having members of that commission with direct local government experience and the requirement to face the electorate would be valuable, although I would prefer it if members had local government experience rather than parliamentary experience. They would understand the realities of standing for election. Often, the commissioners will have sensible ideas that are unmarketable politically, and that is the problem. That is why it is necessary to have someone on the board to whom local authority councillors can make representation who understands the difficulties that they may face on the ground in dealing with some of the issues that they may come across. I support my hon. Friend.

Jim Knight: These paragraphs of the schedule set out the membership of the commission and the terms of office of its members. As has been hinted at, the arrangements are identical to those for Natural England, which are set out in schedule 1.
The drafting has been amended to reflect many of the points raised during pre-legislative scrutiny, thus making the independence of the commission clearer. In considering the amendments, it is important for the Committee to appreciate how we have responded to the pre-legislative scrutiny. Minimum and maximum numbers of board members are now specified to give a range of eight to 15 members, in line with the Environment Agency. Those numbers are variable by order, in line with English Nature’s current arrangement.
Paragraph 3(3) was also introduced, placing a duty on the Secretary of State to
“have regard to the desirability of appointing a person to the board who has experience of, and has shown some capacity in, some matter relevant to”
the commission’s functions. That addresses the points raised this morning by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about whether the commission might be set up to include a bunch of people who have no interest or experience whatever in anything to do with rural England. However, there is no power for the chairman to appoint board members, which the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs  recommended, as that would be against the code of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and would raise serious issues of ministerial accountability to Parliament.
The amendments seek to limit the flexibility that the Secretary of State will have. Amendment No. 57 would limit the number of members who could be appointed to eight. Amendment No. 58 would require that at least half of the membership of the commission be made up of former elected members of a public authority or former elected Members of this House. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 would require that each member should be appointed for a term of four years, and for not more than two terms, respectively. As I shall explain, some of the proposed amendments do not accord with the OCPA code of practice.
To be effective, the commission needs a good mix of members with diverse backgrounds across a spectrum of relevant skills and expertise, and needs to hear from rural areas in different parts of the country, because, as we heard this morning, there are different issues in different areas of rurality. To impose an upper limit of eight would constrain the flexibility needed to achieve that effectiveness. We are a Committee of 16 members, and I note how effectively you, Mrs. Anderson, and Mr. Forth are able to control and organise us. I am sure that the chair of the commission would be equally capable of managing a commission of up to 15 members, which is, of course, one fewer than on this Committee.

Peter Atkinson: There is a difference between a parliamentary Committee, on which most of the Government Members are forced to remain silent, and a general committee on which people have a great desire to talk for ever.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman should also consider the fact that Government Members tend to turn up for Committees, unlike Opposition Members. Certainly, a committee of up to 15 is perfectly manageable, as shown by the experience with English Nature and the Environment Agency.

John Mann: Will the Minister clarify whether, in relation to the make-up of the board, the definition of rural communities will include the kind of communities in the Sheffield area about which we heard, and will incorporate the many mining communities across the country?

Jim Knight: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. It is important that the commission should have a duty to consider rural disadvantage and that the expertise of its members is sufficient to understand the needs of former mining villages and rural areas on the edge of cities, which can sometimes be forgotten.
The overriding principle of public appointments is that selection should be based on merit, so it would be unfortunate to restrict in the manner proposed our ability to secure the services of those best qualified to serve on the commission. I do not suggest that there would not be plenty of suitable candidates of merit among ex-Members of this House, but the stipulations  are strange and, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, novel. I would argue that packing the commission with ex-politicians also risks bringing party politics into it. We are seeking to ensure that it is independent and, dare I say it, above politics so that it can be the powerful independent voice that we seek.
The accountability route is clear. Ultimately, the commission needs to feel accountable to rural communities, and I accept the suggestion by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) that it must satisfy rural communities, and not just itself, that they have a champion. It will ultimately be accountable to them, although it will be formally held accountable through Parliament.
Flexibility is necessary in the term of appointment of members to ensure that the commission is balanced and that the membership turns over in an orderly manner, so that not all the members leave at the same time. I accept what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said about how he would address that, but appointments are subject to the rules set out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, as I made clear on Tuesday, and they are normally restricted to two terms. I shall not rehearse the arguments that I used then to explain why the OCPA code of practice should be applied and why the hon. Gentleman’s amendments are contrary to it. With that, I urge him to withdraw the amendment and to agree to the schedule.

James Paice: I cannot say that the Minister’s comments are a huge surprise—I think that I could have written them myself, although probably not delivered them with such panache. Nevertheless, I am slightly sorry that he has taken the view that he has. The idea of having 15 people on the board of an organisation that will, at least allegedly, be small, lean and purely advisory, is stretching a point. It is a little odd.
On my proposals for formally elected people, the Minister asserted that he did not want party politics to enter into things, so I hesitate to suggest that they tend to creep into lots of things anyway. I referred to ex-politicians, and as a Minister in a Government who have filled the other end of this building with ex-politicians who never seem to follow the party Whip, he will know that politicians cannot always be relied on to follow the party line, so I am not sure that he is right. I also cannot help reflecting on the fact that it is good enough for the Prime Minister of France never to have been elected to anything in his life. All that I am suggesting is that members of the commission should once have been elected to something, somewhere.
Neither point, however, is hugely important, and we may return to them in this place or in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made:No. 96, in schedule 2, page 47, line 30, leave out
‘As soon as possible after the end of’
and insert ‘For’.
No. 97, in schedule 2, page 47, line 34, at end insert
‘within such period as the Secretary of State directs’.
No. 98, in schedule 2, page 47, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
No. 99, in schedule 2, page 48, line 3, leave out
‘As soon as possible after the end of’
and insert ‘For’.
No. 100, in schedule 2, page 48, line 7, at end insert
‘within such period as the Secretary of State directs’.
No, 101, in schedule 2, page 48, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
‘(b) send a copy of the certified statement and of his report to the Secretary of State as soon as possible.’.
No. 102, in schedule 2, page 48, line 12, at end insert—
‘23A The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a document consisting of—
(a) a copy of the report sent under paragraph 22(1), and
(b) a copy of the statement and report sent under paragraph 23(4).’.—[Jim Knight.]

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 18 - Commission’s general purpose

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in clause 18, page 7, line 17, leave out ‘and economic’ and insert ’, economic and environmental’.
I shall not keep the Committee long, because our intention is perfectly self-explanatory. We seek to amend the commission’s general purpose to ensure that it has a responsibility for the environment. Some Members might feel that we have just done all that with Natural England, but earlier in today’s debate, the Minister said that social issues were mainly the responsibility of local authorities; he used that argument to rebuff the case that we made earlier. Despite that, however, social issues are clearly and rightly going to be part of the commission’s responsibilities. We therefore need to ensure that it understands the gamut of rural needs. That is not to suggest that it will somehow supplant Natural England or seek to interfere, but it will reflect on rural needs in its activities.
For the purposes of this chapter, “rural needs” means
“the social and economic needs of persons in rural areas in England.”
I think that environmental needs should be added to that definition. In rural England, one cannot separate people from the environment. Arguably, of course, the environment is always around all of us, but there is a particular aspect to rural areas in which people are part of the natural environment. One cannot separate those aspects, which is why the commission should consider all three elements as being rural needs.
In some ways, the amendment would reduce potential conflict between the commission and Natural England because without it, the commission could advocate something for social and economic reasons, but then Natural England could say, “Hang on, look at the environmental impact,” to which the commission could say, “To hell with the  environmental impact; it is not part of our remit.” I suggest that the commission should understand the environmental aspect of things when proposing some sort of development. The environment is part of sustainable development; indeed, it is central to it. That is the nub of my argument.

Jim Knight: The Bill makes it clear that the commission’s primary focus will be on social and economic needs, but in championing people it needs to ensure that relationships between people, businesses, communities and their environment are enhanced, not weakened. Therefore, it must promote ways of meeting the needs of rural people and areas that contribute to sustainable development. Clause 18(1)(b) concerns
“meeting rural needs in ways that contribute to sustainable development.”
So that consideration is there.
In many ways, the argument about whether we should accept the amendment is about whether it should be implicit or explicit that the commission should be mindful of the environment in the context of sustainable development. One could cut it both ways. We chose to state it implicitly in subsection (1)(b), whereas the Opposition suggest that it should be explicit. I am relatively relaxed on this, but there are several bodies that are concerned with the environment and that take the environmental lead, such as the Sustainable Development Commission, and I am nervous about creating too much duplication of duties, so I prefer that the commission should focus particularly on the social and economic needs of people in rural areas.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is right to say that one cannot separate people from the environment. Where the environment affects people, the commission will certainly have a role. It will not be responsible for pursuing environmental goals directly, but will need to play a role in encouraging others to consider such issues in the round in developing sustainable solutions for rural communities. As hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said, a high-quality rural environment and a vibrant rural economy go hand in hand. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister. He has covered most of the points and has had the grace to suggest that there is not much between his position and mine, except that I want to make the need to consider the environment more explicit. His comments are now clearly on the record as part and parcel of the purposes of the commission, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Atkinson: I want briefly to probe the Minister on the general purpose of the clause and the balance that the commission will strike in dealing with persons suffering from social disadvantage and areas suffering from economic underperformance.
The hon. Member for Sherwood touched earlier on the fact that there is a considerable drift from the town to the countryside. Some of the problems in the countryside are caused not simply by industrial decline, as in the mining villages, but, in a sense, by increasing prosperity. A lot of commuters and others move into rural communities, leaving a rump of country folk—for want of a better word—who often suffer disadvantages. They are the ones who rely on the diminishing bus service and the village shop that is closing down, while the new people probably do not patronise them so much. There are also all the other problems of the changing countryside, and hon. Members will be fully aware of them. However, the rural development agencies and others are concentrating on the mining communities, although they are clearly rural communities, and there are a considerable number of them in the north-east of England. Everyone is very much aware of the coalfield communities, and a considerable amount of work is being done in them.
I am therefore anxious for an assurance from the Minister that the commission will not pick on one type of area and ignore the problems in other, more prosperous areas. I was thinking of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, which is not normally known for deprivation, but it does contain traditional country people who suffer such problems.

Jim Knight: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments, because it is important to clarify that when I talk about social disadvantage, I am talking about it wherever it is found. His analysis is correct: at one level, we could say that social disadvantage is a wide side of difficulties that prevent people from participating in society. They include poverty, but also limiting factors such as lack of skills, unequal levels of health and well-being, inability to participate fully in local government and so on. We may find concentrations of those factors in what I referred to earlier as lagging areas, although there was a suggestion that areas might not want to think of themselves as lagging. Such areas are typically remote—there is a core-periphery relationship in all this analysis—and may often have seen a decline in traditional industries, such as fishing, mining and agriculture.
A huge number of people want to retire to my constituency of South Dorset, with its beautiful environment and wonderful quality of life. Many people want to purchase second homes and holiday homes there. In many ways, the prosperity that they personally and individually bring masks pockets of deprivation. I would certainly see one of the commission’s functions as producing the evidence and  marshalling the arguments on addressing pockets of rural deprivation so that it can assist government at all levels to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Representation, advice and monitoring

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 113, in clause 19, page 7, line 31, after ‘meeting’, insert ‘, or not meeting,’.
This is another brief amendment, and it is equally self-explanatory. We are talking about the commission representing rural needs, giving advice and monitoring and making reports about the way in which policies are adopted. I suspect that here, too, we shall be arguing about what is implicit and what is explicit, but I would like it made explicit in the Bill that the commission’s reports can also address the ways in which the policies of a Government, a local authority or an organisation do not meet rural needs. If we are to ensure that the commission is given the credibility that we all want it to have, everyone should understand its role. I rest my case. If we are going to ensure that it takes heed of rural communities and rural needs, we must also fully and explicitly understand that its function is to point out the problems as well as the positive things.
Saying that something is beginning to meet rural needs or is meeting 50 per cent. of rural needs is the reverse of the half full, half empty argument, but it would be better if the Bill clearly stated that the commission’s reports should address failures as well as positive things. I hope that the Minister will accede to this minor proposal to make something explicit in the Bill.

Jim Knight: Paragraph (c) establishes the monitoring function of the commission. It places a duty on the commission to monitor and report on the implementation of policies—that is, to assess the way in which policies are adopted by the Government and others are implemented—and the extent to which those policies meet rural needs.
The amendment is relatively harmless, and relatively unnecessary. By implication, when the commission reports on the way in which policies have been adopted by relevant persons, such a report would highlight the good and the bad. The use of the word “extent” would also render the extra words “or not meeting” superfluous. Policies could meet need to a greater or a lesser extent.
The amendment is therefore unnecessary. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it on that basis.

James Paice: I had hoped that the Minister would at least have attempted to humour me on an amendment as minor as this. It is usual, during the passage of a Bill, for the Minister to accede to some completely minor amendment, just so that the Opposition have a feeling of success, even though it is purely token. This could have been the Minister’s opportunity to do that, and I  could have left the Committee Room, issued all my press releases and really made a great deal of this, but he is flatly refusing to accede to two minor words—

Jim Knight: Three.

James Paice: Sorry, yes.

Roger Williams: The devil is in the third.

James Paice: The devil is in the third word, but there we are. I am hopeful that, as the Minister is not going to humour me by accepting this amendment, he will accept a more significant amendment later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Williams: On a point of order, Mrs. Anderson. I have just noticed that my hon. Friends have tabled an amendment that withdraws the whole of clause 19, but it does not appear on the amendment paper, so do we take it with the clause stand part debate?

Janet Anderson: That amendment has not been selected.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Janet Anderson: With the leave of the Committee, I propose to take clauses 20 to 28 together.

Paddy Tipping: On a point of order, Mrs. Anderson. I wished to make a point about clause 26.

Janet Anderson: It might benefit the Committee if we take the clauses separately.

Clauses 20 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Directions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Williams: We have had much debate about the directions that the Secretary of State could give Natural England, and the clause replicates the directions for the Commission for Rural Communities. However, one difference between Natural England and the CRC is that Natural England could actually do things. For instance, it could enter into management agreements and take much more explicit action in the countryside. The CRC, however, is a body for advocacy and advice. Subsection (4) states:
 “The Commission must comply with any directions given under this section.”
However, that is less appropriate for the commission than it is for Natural England.
I understand that the Secretary of State might wish to stop a body from becoming actively involved in an activity that was contrary to Government policy or that stood in contradiction to the work of another Department. However, if we do not give the commission the absolute right to decide what do—  which elements of rural activity to make reports on or take evidence on, or what recommendations to make on Government policy—we will do away with the very independence that the Minister has advocated. I ask him to reflect on that. Although I can understand that he might believe such arrangements to be suitable for Natural England, are they really appropriate for the Commission for Rural Communities?

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and it is appropriate that I should clarify it. On one level, we are doing no more than what is done with all non-departmental public bodies. I can rehearse all the arguments from before about Natural England and accountability, but the bottom-line assurance is that, ultimately, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. Therefore, the clause is necessary.
The commission is an advisory, not a delivery, body, so it is unlikely that the power would ever be used. There is a similar power in relation to the Countryside Agency, and I can confirm that no directions have been issued to that body either. I can also clarify that we would not be in a position to direct the commission on what its findings should be or on what to advise Government, although we could ask it to look at something for us.
To give the hon. Gentleman an example, we are in the process of negotiating with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the establishment of a task and finish group, as a commission to look at affordable rural housing, which we all know is a concern in rural England. I could have asked the fledgling Commission for Rural Communities to do that work for us. However, I have made the judgment that, while we are in the middle of organisational change for the commission, the formation of Natural England and everything else that is taking place in the context of the Bill, it would be more appropriate for a separate body to have completed the work by the time that the commission is formally established, so that the commission can then take the matter up for us.

Roger Williams: Perhaps I can be a little more explicit about the avenue of thought that I was pursuing. What if the Commission for Rural Communities wanted to look into an aspect of rural life in which the Government felt they were failing? I would be concerned about the Secretary of State having the power to tell the commission, “No, you can’t look at that, because we’re very sensitive and we know we’ve failed.” I am not talking about this Government, but a Government in the future. That is the real concern that I have about that power. It is not the power of being able to tell the Commission to go and do something; it is the power of saying that it cannot look at something because the Government feel very sensitive about it.

Jim Knight: That is useful clarification, but I think that the fact that we have included in clause 25(2) that the
“Secretary of State must publish any directions given under this section”
means that if the commission were to announce that it was going to do a piece of work on, let us say again, affordable housing in rural areas, and the Secretary of State, by direction, said that it was not allowed to do so, that would be published and there would, understandably, be an outcry in the country, particularly in rural England, that the Secretary of State had constrained the commission from carrying out what everyone would consider to be useful work. I hope, on that basis, that the hon. Gentleman has the reassurance that he needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Transfers on dissolution of English Nature and Countryside Agency

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paddy Tipping: So far the Committee has had the opportunity to talk about policy, but clauses 26 to 30 talk about practicalities: the transfer and the way in which the new bodies are to be set up. I want briefly to ask the Minister some questions about that. It is not an easy task and perhaps at the outset I should record my appreciation of the work that the staff of the agencies are doing. There is more than just one agency; there is an end-point when they will be unified in one agency, and they have to manage the process. They have, as we say, to move from the past to the future. Some movements are easier than others, and this one is quite difficult. There are some issues involved with that, and I want to ask the Minister about property.
All Government Departments are under pressure, through the Gershon review, to reduce spending. The Minister has told us that the two new bodies—Natural England and the CRC—are to be independent. Will he give me an assurance that the property in which the bodies will eventually reside will belong to the agencies themselves? There have been stories in the past that the properties might belong, for example, to DEFRA, and will be sub-let, and the new bodies will merely be tenants. My own view is that they are truly independent bodies, and it is important that they have control of their own property. I believe that substantial savings lie behind the Bill, and it would be helpful if the Minister would confirm that the new bodies are to be property owners in their own right, and that they are independent and in control of their own destiny.
I want to return to an issue that was touched on on Second Reading, which is the IT systems that will lie behind the new bodies. One of the tasks that the Department is currently considering is the Rural Payments Agency, which is in the midst of real change,  with a new IT system being installed. It has had a chequered history, and is putting in a new IT system at the same time as the reasons for and methods of payments are changing. It moved to single payments and an entry system. That is not going to be easy. Natural England, in particular, is to be involved in those payment mechanisms. Can the Minister assure me that, within the timeframe that has been set out, the new IT system will be delivered on time, on cost and fit for purpose?
The Minister may not want to be absolutely definitive on that point at the moment, as I know that there are problems in this area, but I wanted to use this occasion to say that all reorganisation is difficult and that in this reorganisation strong management will be necessary because, as I said initially, it is important to keep the show on the road while developing new purposes and new organisations. That is not an easy task. I know that the Minister’s officials have been heavily involved in it. Good management is necessary and satisfactory outcomes will be important.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to join him in paying tribute to the work of the staff of the various agencies and of the RDS, which we are talking about in the context of this clause. They have done and continue to do excellent work and I look forward to them doing equally good work in the new organisations of which they will be a part.
My hon. Friend asked specific and valid questions about property and the vexed issue of IT—of course I welcome those questions hugely. The Countryside Agency and English Nature hold freehold or leasehold interests in land in two distinct categories. The first is property held for the public benefit, such as national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest, where the land has been acquired by the body. The second category is property such as administrative office buildings held to enable the body to carry out its functions.
The property in the first category and attendant rights and liabilities will be transferred from the Countryside Agency and English Nature to Natural England. I hope that that is clear. It is clear in the Bill that the commission and Natural England will have the power to buy, own and dispose of property.
Property in the second category is expected to be transferred to become part of the civil estate, held on behalf of the Department. The transfer will be from the Countryside Agency or English Nature to the Secretary of State. As a matter of detail, in practice the property will be held by the Secretary of State on behalf of DEFRA, but the legislation needs to provide only for transfers to a Minister of the Crown. That transfer of property will allow flexible estate management to meet rapidly changing business needs, and the better management of public sector property assets in the light of the recent Lyons and Gershon reviews. In future, the Department may want to transfer property with attendant rights and liabilities to Natural England and, if appropriate, the Commission for Rural Communities, or vice versa, according to business needs.

Paddy Tipping: I have entirely followed the process and I hope that we will reach that end stage, with the new bodies responsible for their own property, as quickly as possible.

Jim Knight: Certainly. As part of the Department’s response to the Gershon report, we have said that the estate properties will possibly be held and managed on a corporate basis for Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities. It is also worth saying that the estate’s footprint should reduce significantly from the 80 or so sites across the country occupied by the existing organisations, particularly in the light of the more flexible and customer-focused ways of working envisaged and the joining up with partner organisations across the DEFRA family and beyond. Over time, we expect the final estate figure to be in the order of 50 sites across the country, subject to the introduction of more flexible and customer-focused ways of working, to IT to support that reduction and to Natural England’s final business need.
There was a request for an assurance that the IT will be delivered on time and to budget. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) raised that point on Second Reading and I have written to him accordingly. If the Committee wishes, I will circulate that letter to members of the Committee—seeing nodding heads, I will do that. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood that I am aware of the difficulties involved with IT, including those of the Rural Payments Agency, and my officials are considering the matter very carefully. We are not complacent, but it would be rash of me to make promises about the outcomes.
It is clearly our intention that the IT should be on-time, on-budget, effective and work well to allow staff to get on with the job they want to do, rather than wrestle with IT problems. That is our intention and I have a fair degree of confidence from the conversations I have had that the IT challenge in respect of setting up the new organisations is considerably simpler than the problems of the Rural Payments Agency: the establishment of single payment systems, the entry-level system and the consequent issues of digitisation of maps and so on. As far as I am aware, there are no digitised map issues attached to the formation of Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities.

James Paice: Those bodies will be responsible for access, so presumably they are taking over the whole of the responsibility from the Countryside Agency for mapping all open country. Presumably, they have a huge mapping exercise to undertake. One would assume that they will use the same maps as the RPA rather than reinvent the wheel—even if it has been badly invented.

Jim Knight: Certainly there would be no intention to reinvent the wheel. The hon. Gentleman makes interesting points regarding rights of way and the relationship with registration, but the reassurance I am trying to give is that we are aware of the IT issues. The letter that went to the right hon. Member for Fylde was  also copied to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the problems of the RPA are discussed in this letter. By way of reassurance, the rights of way maps are not new. The work on them is now under way and is now largely completed. Much has already been done and those maps can be transferred relatively easy. The hon. Gentleman is right that I should not mislead anyone about maps, but I was talking about the same sorts of problems and digitised maps that are currently an issue.

Roger Williams: That point has been raised with me in the context of the maps that delineate the open access land. Presumably copyright will stay with one of the bodies—perhaps Natural England—and because of the cost of obtaining the copyright, mapmakers will not be able to afford it. Therefore, people will not have quite so much information. The copyright for maps of open access land could be made available without charge to other mapmakers so that there would be a greater amount of information for people who wanted to make use of that land.

Jim Knight: I shall give some thought to the hon. Gentleman’s point. Suffice it to say, in respect of this clause, rights of way mapping will transfer as part of the transfer of functions from the Countryside Agency to Natural England. If there are issues related to the practice of the Countryside Agency or the future practice of Natural England, I will consider them and we can have a separate discussion.
I hope that I have given sufficient explanation of the transfers for the Committee to be content for the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - Transfer schemes

Question proposed, That this schedule be the third schedule to the Bill.

Jim Knight: I want to speak very briefly on this for the benefit of staff, in many ways. Schedule 3 to the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to provide for the transfer of property rights or liabilities that would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or signed.
Schedule 3 schemes can cover the rights and liabilities under contracts of employment that are transferred by virtue of a scheme. This is the point that I wanted to make sure was clarified: the transfer of staff will be carried out so that staff are protected and they do not suffer detriment to their employment rights as a result of that transfer. That will be accomplished  through the transfer of undertaking regulations principles and in accordance with the Cabinet Office statement of practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Question proposed, That this schedule be the fourth schedule to the Bill.

Roger Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in schedule 4, page 50, line 29, at end insert
‘after consultation with the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales’.

Janet Anderson: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
No. 88, in schedule 4, page 50, line 30, at end insert
‘after consultation with the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales’.

Roger Williams: On Second Reading, I reminded the Minister that this was, to a large extent, an England and Wales Bill, although the previous parts of it that we have been discussing have referred mainly, if not entirely, to England. Sometimes we MPs with constituencies in Wales are extolled by Ministers at the Wales Office; although we complain that there is not enough Wales-only legislation, they point out the number of Bills that affect Wales and England.
However, I find it disappointing that there is not a Wales Office Minister on this Committee to deal with Welsh business. We deal with a lot of legislation that affects England and Wales, and it is important that the primary legislation that comes from Westminster and affects the devolution settlement is appropriate for—and, more importantly, sympathetic to—that settlement, the progress that it makes and the evolution that takes place.
Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 are only minor. They are just a reminder to the Minister that it would be legislatively polite if the Secretary of State, in appointing the chairman of the Joint Committee and its five members, consulted the devolved National Assembly for Wales and Scottish Ministers.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reflect on that and understand that it would strengthen the relationship between Westminster and the devolved Governments. It would be an advantage in making sure that the committee worked better and that the relationships between Westminster, Wales and Scotland were enhanced. I urge the Minister to reflect on that and agree to these minor amendments, which would mean so much to the devolved Administrations.

Jim Knight: The clause defines the UK conservation bodies and the Great Britain conservation bodies that are used in later clauses when the functions that they deliver through the Joint Committee are defined. For the benefit of this Committee, I should say that the UK  conservation bodies are Natural England, the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside. The Great Britain conservation agencies are Natural England, the Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage.
I have no objection to the principle behind these “legislatively polite”—as the hon. Gentleman puts it—amendments. However, the Scotland Act 1998 already requires the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers—

Janet Anderson: Order. I remind the Minister that we are on schedule 4 at the moment.

Jim Knight: I apologise, Mrs. Anderson. I was coming to address schedule 4, but I seem to have just given you the justification for clause 32, which was a flaw in my juggling. Occasionally I drop the ball.
Schedule 4 covers the funding arrangements for the Joint Committee. The main change is to provide for the participation of Northern Ireland, in the form of funding arrangements. As I began to say before you so rightly corrected me, Mrs. Anderson, I have no objection to the principle. However, in respect of Scotland it is unnecessary because the Scotland Act already requires the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers on appointments to cross-border bodies. While there is no equivalent provision relating to Wales, the Secretary of State routinely consults Welsh Assembly Ministers on exactly the same basis as Scottish Ministers, and would continue to do so, as we have on this and every other part of the Bill.
The amendment, as drafted, does not cover Northern Ireland, and would therefore create a differential approach. I therefore ask the Committee to resist the amendment on that basis. The extension of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s remit to Northern Ireland through this legislation means that Ministers there—and, should the Assembly be restored, Ministers of any devolved administration—should be treated on the same basis as their counterparts in Scotland and Wales. I will reflect on what he says but, given this, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Roger Williams: I thank the Minister for that, and for clarifying the difference in the legislation between Scotland and Wales and, indeed, Northern Ireland. I hope that he will reflect upon the matter, because these things may seem small but they are important. Given his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jim Knight: I beg to move amendment
No. 108, in schedule 4, page 52, line 40, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (5) and insert—
‘()The funding bodies must provide the joint committee with such financial resources as the appropriate authorities consider are needed for the proper discharge of the functions conferred by Part 2.
()When determining what financial resources should be provided, the appropriate authorities must take into account—
(a)any grant being made under paragraph 15, and
(b)the views of the joint committee and the funding bodies.
()The contributions of each of the funding bodies are to be such as are agreed by the appropriate authorities, having taken into account the views of those bodies.
I hope that I am using the right piece of paper. Paragraph 14 of schedule 4 covers the funding arrangements for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. As drafted, the Bill would follow the approach set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, by leaving decisions on the budget, and the share of costs to be borne by its body, to the bodies that contribute funding—that is, Natural England, the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage and, as a result of the extension of the JNCC’s remit, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.
This amendment would not change the requirement for the so-called funding bodies to contribute towards the budget of the JNCC, but it would leave decisions on the budget level, and the proportion that each body should pay, in the hands of the Government. In effect, it would reflect what happens in reality, and the belief is that it is better to reflect reality than some other process that may go on.
The appropriate authorities—that is, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland as JNCC sponsors in Government—in reaching their decisions would be obliged to have regard to the views of the funding bodies and, in the case of the budget level, the views of the Joint Committee as well. As I have said, this reflects the recommendations of the last financial management and policy review of the JNCC, which were endorsed in the Government’s response issued in November 2002.
Additionally, the changed wording omits references in the original text to budgets being set with reference to a particular financial year, in order to be consistent with the wording in schedules 1 and 2, for Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities. This wording might also work against our desire to provide the JNCC with three-yearly budget settlements, as we do for our other sponsored bodies. I would like to apologise to the Committee for our not getting this situation reflected in the original text of the Bill, but we were busy consulting our friends in Wales and Scotland when the Bill was introduced and we have therefore had to include this provision as a Government amendment in Committee.

Peter Atkinson: I should have intervened in the Minister’s speech, but I was not quick enough. There seems to be a rather intriguing change of phraseology about this because there has apparently been a change of emphasis. In the original document the funding bodies
“must pay to the Joint Committee such sums as these bodies, with the approval of the appropriate authorities, may agree.”
The new version, however, says:
“must provide the Joint Committee with such financial resources that the appropriate authorities consider are needed for the proper discharge of the functions conferred on part 2.”
It seems that the stealthy hand of the Treasury is getting in the way.

Jim Knight: As I said before, that reflects what happens in reality and it is better, for the sake of transparency, to have such clarity in the Bill and it better reflects the 1990 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Purpose of functions under this Part

James Paice: I beg to move amendment
No. 114, in clause 33, page 11, line 25, leave out ‘desirability’ and insert ‘commitment’.
The Bill refers in several places to sustainable development. Now is not the time to debate what that may be, or precisely how the various aspects of it—social, economic, environmental—fit together.

Peter Atkinson: We can.

James Paice: We can debate it if my hon. Friend really wants to, but I suspect that he would give me short shrift if I started to do so.
How committed are we to sustainable development? We debated earlier whether Natural England was to be promoting or contributing, and in this clause the JNCC is to
“have regard to ... the desirability of contributing to sustainable development”,
which is extremely vague. The words “have regard to” are vague and “the desirability of contributing” is pretty vague, so when, as in this subsection (2)(b), the two are put in train, we end up with a serious lack of commitment.
The JNCC’s responsibilities are fairly narrow and we will support them, but if it is going to have any relationship with sustainable development, surely it ought to be as committed to the principle as everybody else. That is not to suggest that it should abandon its principles about being primarily a conservation body with the responsibilities set out in clause 33(1), but it should be committed. I am concerned that the double phrasing of “have regard to” with “the desirability of” is too vague to be meaningful.
Article 2(3) of the habitats directive, which we are signed up to, refers to the commitment to sustainable development. The Government are committed to that concept, as are the Opposition. If the habitats directive can refer to the commitment to sustainable development, it would be odd if the JNCC—the very body that has to report to the Government about the habitats directive—were not committed to sustainable development.
This is another short, sharp, self-explanatory amendment and I hope that the Minister will not say that it is unnecessary, because it slightly firms up what we are trying to achieve. We want to ensure that the JNCC, like other bodies, is committed to the overall objective of sustainable development.

Jim Knight: The original wording of the clause requires the United Kingdom conservation agencies and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to have regard to the desirability of contributing to sustainable development when exercising their functions. We must remember that the primary role of the JNCC is that of an adviser on nature conservation. The phrasing in the clause was chosen carefully, so that the JNCC could set its advice in the context of sustainable development, without having to moderate it to take into account socio-economic factors.
The amendment would require the JNCC to take account of the commitment to sustainable development and to have to take into account socio-economic issues, by implication. I do not believe that that would be appropriate. It is for those whom the JNCC advise, including Ministers, to weigh the considerations of the other pillars of sustainable development when making decisions. We want the JNCC to provide objective and sound scientific advice on nature conservation issues.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the European Union’s habitats directive. Socio- economic, cultural and regional considerations are delivered through other provisions in the directive, such as in article 6, rather than providing a sustainable thread throughout the directive as a whole. I ask him to reflect on the argument that, as a closely defined body advising on nature conservation, it is appropriate for it to
“have regard to...the desirability of contributing to sustainable development”,
but such a function is so closely defined that it is then up to Ministers when they receive such advice to have stronger regard for sustainable development than he is after.

James Paice: When I go back to the organisation that suggested the last three amendments that I have introduced, I shall tell them that the Minister was not able to accede to them and that I shall not accept any more of its suggested amendments. The record is beginning to become monotonous.
It is the role of the Opposition to put forward suggestions from outside bodies and—to be serious—I am happy to do so. I understand the Minister’s argument. At the end of the day, it is for advisers to advise and for Ministers to decide, which is as it should be. We should all be committed to the principle of sustainable development. To me, it is not sustainable development if the interests of the environment are not taken into account seriously and put at the forefront, as I implied in an earlier debate. However, I am happy to accept the Minister’s assurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 34 to 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Tony Cunningham.]
Adjourned accordingly at thirty-four minutes past Two o’clock till Tuesday 28 June at half-past Ten o’clock.